George Bush vs. Barry Bonds

How do you know Barry Bonds is so unlikeable? Have you met him? Or are you just going by media reports?

Barry Bonds has no obligation to help sportswriters do their jobs. If he is unwilling to cooperate with them that is his prerogative.

People do not recall, but Mark McGwire was very surly with the press when he played for the Oakland A's. He was not very popular either. His attitude changed upon his going to St. Louis, and he got nothing but favorable reviews when he put together his historic season. Prior to his historic 70 home run season McGwire had never hit more than 49 home runs in a season. Why is his increase in home runs by 21 in a season less controversial than Bonds' increase of 24? Bonds is generally recognized as being a much better hitter than McGwire when it comes to making contact with the ball.

I look at the general increase in home runs in baseball and I come to the following conclusions. Either all of the batters have gotten dramatically stronger, the pitching has become non-challenging, or the baseballs are flying farther due to being wound tighter. It could well be the first two conclusions, or some combination of the two. However, I think the third is the likely reason as any change would have an immediate and widespread impact on the game.

All of the increased home run numbers have occurred after the strike/lock-out of 1994 forced the cancellation of the World Series. Baseballs attendance was in decline. How better to attract fans than to increase scoring, and the most dramatic method of scoring is still the home run. Suddenly the balls start flying out of the ballparks at historic rates, and the home runs are being hit by all players not just the biggest and strongest. Would the batters all have gotten better and the pitchers worse at nearly the same moment in time? Not too likely, but a simple change in the baseballs would take effect pervasively and immediately.

That said, Bonds is in a position to deny having used them, despite all (circumstantial) evidence to the contrary. In other words, we are not likely to be able to prove -- in a Court of Law -- that Barry Bonds used illegal steroids.

It won't be proved because Baseball had no testing or rules against steroids until this year.

One final thought: Let's see what happens to Bonds "numbers" next season when he knows that he's being watched. If his numbers decline significantly, or he reports to camp significantly smaller (Giambi), more people will say "see, I knew it".

Bonds was watched and tested in 2004. Sosa's, Santiago's and Giambi's numbers fell off, but Bonds didn't. Doesn't prove he didn't take steroids, but he did defy expectations of a drop off for at least one year. I'm not sure another year of production like we've seen the last four would exopnerate Bonds much anyway.

Out of curiousity, how much of a fall-off in production would be enough to get you to say "aha?"

If he plays in 120 games and hits 35 homers, does that mean he's off the steroids, or does it mean he's 41, or both?

All of the increased home run numbers have occurred after the strike/lock-out of 1994 forced the cancellation of the World Series. Baseballs attendance was in decline.

Actually, had it not been for the '94 lockout, that would be recognized as the year that the power surge began in earnest. Ken Griffey Jr. and Matt Williams had 40 and 43 homers when the season was canceled in early August, so both would have threatened Maris' record of 61. Bonds had 37 himself, and would have likely gone over 50 in '94, as would about a half dozen players.

It's obvious to anyone with eyes that Bonds is on steroids. That said, Bonds is in a position to deny having used them, despite all (circumstantial) evidence to the contrary. In other words, we are not likely to be able to prove -- in a Court of Law -- that Barry Bonds used illegal steroids.

First of all. I lift weights every day and it's not obvious to my eyes that Bonds does any such thing. Arnie, maybe some pro wrestlers, but there is no way you can tell by looking paticularly with the steroid precursors they have now.

Secondly, the point remains (which you didn't address) that it's not the federal government's job to "send messages" by abusing the grand jury process and leaking damaging information about athletes it's their job to apprehend dangerous criminals.

OK, we've got lots of quotes from a Playboy article. All tied together in something that might resemble a narrative. But the quotes seem like they could be wholly out of context and one of them "always with Bonds as the lure," doesn't quote anybody but the Playboy writer.

The fact is that everybody in baseball suspected Bonds of steroids, mostly because of the increase in his -- hat size!

I see an attempt to make Novitzky the villain.

All I know is this: Bonds previously denied using steroids. He now admits it but puts on qualifiers. The story is not one of legalities. It's one of baseball policing its own. Nobody cares about the legal case except the way it informs the Bonds/Giambi cases.

I must say, the writer amused me with this little gem:

And no nickel-and-dime prosecution of four steroid distributors (including one guy, Greg Anderson, of whom Conte says "the amount of performance-enhancing drugs the feds found at [his] house was minuscule") will produce anything like Bush's desired effect of "send[ing] the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid of steroids now."

You read this and you realize that the conclusion is the opposite of the one the writer wants you to draw. Based on this article you can conclude: (1) Three out of the four steroid distributers were busted red-handed, (2) Greg Anderson was actually caught with steroids (I mean, when they bust a meth lab, do they say "Oh, there was a miniscule amount of actual meth, let 'em go."?), (3) a gratuitous slap of Bush, and (4) two selectively butchered quotes.

Reason should at least demand that their writers should not smoke dope while writing their articles.

Regardless of whether Barry Bonds KNEW he was taking steroids (c'mon, Barry, we weren't born yesterday), the fact is, HE DID. The home runs are tainted, whatever the reason. The weight of history will regard these sluggers with a smirk instead of a salute.

People think this is just about statistics. What about those players who lost jobs over the past ten years because they were playing by the rules? These are careers, not just record books.

I'm all in favor of throwing the book at Giambi, Bonds, Sheffield - whoever. This will continue unabated unless baseball sends a convincing message that if you choose to chemically alter your make-up to gain size, you will be out of a career. There's too much money attached to job performance. It's too tempting, and at this point, foolhardy not to follow in their footsteps when livelihoods are at stake.

I see an attempt to make Novitzky the villain.

I read the Playboy article. It has a named source, Iran White, who worked undecover with Novitsky. There's an ezboard forum that reposts much of the Playboy article:

"White teamed with an IRS agent named Jeff Novitzky, and they grew friendly. No paper pusher, Novitzky was part of the agency's Criminal Investigation group, a position that allowed him freedom and leeway in choosing assignments. He was respected for his persistence and his signature move -- rifling suspects' trash for evidence...
"Novitzky, assigned to the San Jose IRS office, belonged to Bay Area Fitness in Burlingame and often saw Anderson and Bonds there. He told White he was astonished by Bonds's seemingly unnatural size and strength...
"To White, Novitzky -- who did not participate in this article -- seemed to have an unusual interest in the ballplayer. He mentioned Bonds frequently after a sighting or a Giants game...
"Novitzky seemed to care only about Bonds. "He's such an asshole to the press," he said. "I'd sure like to prove it."...

In reading the Playboy article, Novitsky comes across as not entirely above board. I said at the top that I'm not promoting everything in Welch's ReasonOnline article here, but it raised some of the points I mentioned to you the other day about the origins and motives behind the BALCO investigation, and what certainly looks like prosecutorial misconduct that is consistent with those origins and motives. The Playboy article came out months ago, well before most of the BALCO leaks.

What about those players who lost jobs over the past ten years because they were playing by the rules?

There were no rules. That's another unexplored aspect of the scandal. Some players were on steroids, but a lot of other people, especially the owners, made truckloads of money off of them.

I'm all in favor of throwing the book at Giambi, Bonds, Sheffield - whoever. This will continue unabated unless baseball sends a convincing message that if you choose to chemically alter your make-up to gain size, you will be out of a career.

What you're talking about is retroactive enforcement of rules that didn't exist at the time. It's not going to happen.

However, Major League Baseball definitely needs to start frequent and rigorous testing of steroids with strict penalites, before the start of Spring Training.

What's one good way to tell if an athlete is using steroids?

Ben Johnson

Zhuang Yong, 100 Freestyle Gold Medalist, Barcelona Olympics 1992

Michelle Smith DeBruin, 1996 Atlanta Olympics multiple gold medalist

They come out of nowhere, surpass the statistical norms by a lot, and get considerably bigger in the process.

How about Secretariat, Mark Spitz, Nolan Ryan, Eric Heiden, and Babe Ruth?

One of the key phrases is "came out of nowhere". None of the above did (horse racing is hard to compare to human sports). And physically (except for Heiden's thighs), none of these were far out of the norm, either.

The point of my post (and pics) is that a lot of times it's easy to tell, based on a combination of appearance AND performance. Some of the best examples are the East German women swimmers in the 70s and 80s and Chinese women swimmers in the 1990s. Smith DeBruin is another classic case. And while Johnson got caught, a lot of the track-and-field world was pretty sure about Florence Griffith-Joyner, who went from world-class to world-dominant. Both Carl Lewis and Evelyn Ashford made some near-accusatory comments on FloJo without naming her.

Ever since Bonds went on a post-35 home run tear and got considerably bigger at the same time, there have been questions. Having been a long-time observer of this aspect of sports, he unfortunately fits the mold. You can't convict on that, but it raises suspicions because of the resemblances to previously-proven cases.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.